General Committee - 17 February 2025
Date: Monday, 17 February 2025 at 12:30PM
Location: Noosa Shire Council Chambers , 9 Pelican Street , Tewantin , QLD 4565 , Australia
Organiser: Noosa Shire Council
Duration: 01:44:57
Synopsis: Tinbeerwah Facility: minor change approved; Condition 21 monitoring; fence rejected, Planning: code-assessable; appeal risk, Finance: revenue up; spend under; $110m cash, Hub: NextPlay lease.
Meeting Attendees
Committee Members
Brian Stockwell Karen Finzel Amelia Lorentson Jessica Phillips Tom Wegener Frank Wilkie Nicola Wilson Executive Officers
Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy And Environment Kim Rawlings Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt AI-Generated Meeting Insight
Key Decisions & Discussions General Committee approved a minor change for a home-based meat processing facility at 82 Patterson Dr, Tinbeerwah: changed Condition 10 (allow up to two employees 8:00–16:00 Mon–Fri), refused deletion of Condition 21 but amended it, and deleted Condition 6; carried 5–2 (For: Wilson, Stockwell, Wilkie, Wegener, Phillips; Against: Lorentson, Finzel) (Minutes 7.1; 24:09–24:38, 55:33–56:49). Brian Stockwell first moved to delete Condition 21 (time limit), arguing code-assessable uses are not time-limited; motion lost (Minutes 7.1; 08:04–09:46, 23:25–24:09). Frank Wilkie then moved the staff recommendation to retain a modified Condition 21 to enable ongoing monitoring; carried (Minutes 7.1; 24:09–26:26, 55:33–56:49). Karen Finzel sought a deferral to allow staff to engage parties on a boundary fence; lapsed for want of a seconder (Minutes 7.1; 53:20–55:08). Peregian Digital Hub lease for Tenancy A2 to NextPlay for 1 year, with CEO authorised to award one 2‑year option; carried unanimously (Minutes 8.1; 57:25–58:02, 01:01:15–01:03:23). Financial Performance for Jan 2025 noted: operating revenue +$1.6m above budget, operating expenditure $0.77m under; capital revenue +$9m (grant timing); cash $110m with $30m in term deposits (Minutes 8.2; 01:10:24–01:13:33). Operational Plan Q2 progress: 82% of 107 initiatives completed/on track; turnover ~19% to 31 Dec (public sector avg ~18%); new corporate planning system coming (Minutes 8.3; 01:22:23–01:26:01). Staffing pressures highlighted recruitment/retention challenges (engineering, finance, project mgmt) and Noosa cost-of-living impacts; strategic workforce plan and retention actions underway (Minutes 8.3; 01:26:05–01:28:28). Civil operations over‑spend drivers include vegetation growth, reduced roadside passes now requiring heavier clearing, and higher traffic control costs due to safety legislation (Minutes 8.2; 01:13:52–01:16:28). Amelia Lorentson left the meeting at 1:40 pm (Minutes 8.1; noted). Contentious / Transparency Matters Process confusion occurred over whether Wilkie’s proposal was an amendment or a new motion, with points of order and chair guidance before reverting to staff recommendation (Minutes 7.1; 13:05–23:35). Privacy cautions were issued by officers when councillors referenced neighbour communications and family details regarding the Tinbeerwah facility (Minutes 7.1; 30:03–30:13, 42:06–42:25). Karen Finzel pressed for staff-facilitated talks on a boundary fence to address amenity/mental health concerns; officers warned about reasonableness/relevance under development assessment and private cost-sharing (Minutes 7.1; 49:26–54:47). Amelia Lorentson opposed adding employees, citing neighbour stress and proximity (45 m) despite unsubstantiated complaints; others cautioned planning-scheme consistency must prevail (Minutes 7.1; 27:40–35:09, 55:33–56:49). Amenity checks confirmed extensive landscaping/buffering and prior compliance sign‑off; additional fencing deemed disproportionate to scope of minor change (Minutes 7.1; 36:28–37:50, 41:46–42:06). Community concern legacy from original 2021 approval drove insistence on retaining a reviewed time‑limit condition for monitoring (Minutes 7.1; 11:46–15:54, 24:38–25:41). Legal / Risk Planning Act 2016 s63(5) reporting noted; application framed as a “minor change” to a prior approval (Minutes 7.1; motion text). Assessment status : original approval was impact-assessable; post‑2024 State changes make new home‑based business applications code-assessable; time‑limiting code-assessable uses is atypical (Minutes 7.1; 10:11–10:37, 07:21–08:04). State regs prevent schemes from limiting on‑site staff below two; Noosa scheme permits up to six employees for home‑based business on rural/rural‑residential land (Minutes 7.1; 38:38–39:24, 35:17–35:30). Appeal exposure : refusal of two employees where scheme allows six could invite Planning & Environment Court appeal; officers affirmed code‑compliant proposals must be approved (Minutes 7.1; 21:06–21:21, 45:10–45:43). Reasonableness/relevance : conditioning a substantial boundary fence on a narrow minor-change request was flagged as likely unreasonable and could necessitate vegetation removal (Minutes 7.1; 41:46–43:48). Privacy Act risks prompted direction not to disclose identifiable resident details in open meeting (Minutes 7.1; 30:03–30:13, 42:06–42:25). Planning Scheme & Development Control Amenity impacts scoped as unchanged by the staff increase: same 10 deer/week, same shed/location, estimated +4 vehicle movements/day; prior odour/noise complaints unsubstantiated (Minutes 7.1; 01:07–05:27, 05:39–06:26). Condition 21 extends the review period (trial) to monitor any emerging impacts under the modified staffing arrangement through 2029 (Minutes 7.1; 01:07–04:55, 24:09–26:26). Landscaping compliance for the access handle and buffers is in place and signed off; minor extra planting considered marginal benefit (Minutes 7.1; 36:28–37:50, 44:35–45:10). Rural-residential zone context and Noosa Plan support for home‑based enterprise were emphasised, with niche feral‑deer control and gourmet product framed as dual community/environmental benefits (Minutes 7.1; 20:46–21:06, 49:26–50:57). Digital Economy & Peregian Digital Hub NextPlay lease at commercial rate without discount for 1 year; tenant formed by three participants who met via the Hub; prior tenant “graduated” overseas while retaining local team (Minutes 8.1; 01:01:15–01:03:38). Sector growth focus on tech talent and AI capability-building; Hub programs credited with youth upskilling and startup pipeline (Minutes 8.1; 01:04:11–01:05:01, 01:05:01–01:07:05). Financial & Operational Performance Highlights Revenue drivers included higher interest (+$1.1m), goods/services (+$0.3m), grants (+$0.164m), other (+$0.24m); DA fees down ~$0.35m pending large applications’ progress (Minutes 8.2; 01:10:24–01:13:33). Expenditure under budget due to leave timing and materials/services; waste underspend tied to lower-than-forecast contract rises (Minutes 8.2; 01:10:24–01:13:33). Landfill rehab provisions are tracking down as capping proceeds; explanations given for provisions movement (Minutes 8.2; 01:16:28–01:17:29). Unplanned demands on staff time called out as a risk to delivery; councillors urged to align new asks with the adopted, funded Operational Plan (Minutes 8.3; 01:36:47–01:38:24). Multi‑year plans (e.g., Eastern Beaches Foreshore Management Plan) proceed over several years; Q2 shows action subsets only (Minutes 8.3; 01:40:11–01:40:35). Environmental Concerns Deer processing framed as supporting feral animal control while enabling a niche food enterprise; site inspections reported negligible off‑site noise and strong visual screening (Minutes 7.1; 49:26–50:57, 36:28–37:50). Community Transparency & Consultation Historic community interest in the Tinbeerwah approval acknowledged; retention of a review condition positioned as precautionary oversight (Minutes 7.1; 11:46–15:54, 24:38–26:26). Neighbour welfare concerns (stress/anxiety) were raised; officers directed councillors to avoid identifiable disclosures and to rely on planning criteria (Minutes 7.1; 27:40–33:15, 42:06–42:25).
Official Meeting Minutes
MINUTES General Committee Meeting Monday, 17 February 2025 12:30 PM Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin Committee: Crs Brian Stockwell (Chair), Karen Finzel, Amelia Lorentson, Jessica Phillips, Tom Wegener, Frank Wilkie, Nicola Wilson “Noosa Shire – different by nature” GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 FEBRUARY 2025 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The meeting was declared open at 12.30pm 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY Noosa Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the lands and waters of the Noosa area, the Kabi Kabi people, and pays respect to their Elders, past, present and emerging. 3. ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cr Brian Stockwell (Chair) Cr Karen Finzel (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Amelia Lorentson (via Microsoft Teams) Cr Jessica Phillips Cr Tom Wegener Cr Frank Wilkie Cr Nicola Wilson EXECUTIVE Chief Executive Officer Larry Sengstock Director Strategy and Environment Kim Rawlings Director Community Services Kerri Contini Director Infrastructure Services Shaun Walsh Director Development & Regulation Richard MacGillivray Acting Director Corporate Services Margaret Gatt APOLOGIES Nil 4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Committee Resolution Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener The Minutes of the General Committee Meeting held on 20 January 2025 be received and confirmed. Carried unanimously. 5. PRESENTATIONS Nil. 6. DEPUTATIONS Nil. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 FEBRUARY 2025 7. ITEMS REFERRED FROM COMMITTEES 7.1. MCU21/0154.02 – APPLICATION FOR A MINOR CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR HOME BASED BUSINESS (MEAT PROCESSING FACILITY) AT 82 PATTERSON DRIVE, TINBEERWAH (REFERRED FROM PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE DATED 11 FEBRUARY 2025) Motion Moved: Cr Brian Stockwell Seconded: Cr Tom Wegener That Council note the report by the Senior Planner to the Planning and Environment Meeting dated 11 February 2025 regarding Application No. MCU21/0154.02 for a minor change to the development approval for a Homebased business (Meat Processing Facility) situated at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah and: A. Approve the application and agree to change condition 10 outlined in Attachment 1. B. Delete Condition 21 C. Delete condition 6. D. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. For: Crs Stockwell and Wilson Against: Crs Wilkie, Lorentson, Wegener, Phillips, Lorentson and Finzel. Lost. Amendment Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Replace item B with: Refuse to delete Condition 21 Amendment lapsed for want of a seconder. Motion Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Senior Planner to the Planning and Environment Meeting dated 11 February 2025 regarding Application No. MCU21/0154.02 for a minor change to the development approval for a Homebased business (Meat Processing Facility) situated at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah and: A. Approve the application and agree to change condition 10 outlined in Attachment 1. B. Refuse the request to delete Condition 21, instead changing the condition as outlined in Attachment 1. C. Delete condition 6. GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 FEBRUARY 2025 D. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. Procedural Motion Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: That consideration of item 7.1 be deferred to the Ordinary Meeting dated 20 February 2025 to allow staff to engage with relevant parties in relation to establishment of boundary fence. The matter lapsed for want of a seconder. Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Frank Wilkie Seconded: Cr Karen Finzel That Council note the report by the Senior Planner to the Planning and Environment Meeting dated 11 February 2025 regarding Application No. MCU21/0154.02 for a minor change to the development approval for a Homebased business (Meat Processing Facility) situated at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah and: A. Approve the application and agree to change condition 10 outlined in Attachment 1. B. Refuse the request to delete Condition 21, instead changing the condition as outlined in Attachment 1. C. Delete condition 6. D. Note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63(5) of the Planning Act 2016. For: Crs Wilson, Stockwell, Wilkie, Wegner and Phillips Against: Crs Lorentson and Finzel Carried. 8. REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 8.1. NEW TENANT - TENANCY A2, PEREGIAN DIGITAL HUB Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Brian Stockwell That Council A. Note the report by the Director, Digital Hub & Innovation to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 February 2025 regarding the commercial lease of office space at the Peregian Digital Hub; B. Agree to enter a commercial lease for Tenancy A2 at the Digital Hub, Peregian Beach, to NextPlay for a 1 year term, as generally outlined in the report; and GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 17 FEBRUARY 2025 C. Authorise the CEO to award one option of 2 years, subject to the lessee complying with the terms of the lease. Carried unanimously. Cr Amelia Lorentson left the meeting at 1.40pm. 8.2. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT – JANUARY 2025 Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Karen Finzel Seconded: Cr Frank Wilkie That Council note the report by the Financial Services Manager to the General Committee Meeting dated 17 February 2025 outlining the January 2025 year to date financial performance against budget, including changes to the financial performance report with the inclusion of key financial sustainability indicators. Carried unanimously. 8.3. OPERATIONAL PLAN 2024-25 Q2 QUARTERLY REPORTING Committee Recommendation Moved: Cr Tom Wegener Seconded: Cr Jessica Phillips That Council note the report by the Executive Officer to the General Committee dated 17 February 2025 regarding the 2024-25 Operational Plan and: A. Note the progress report for Q2 2024-25 Operational Plan to 31 December 2024 provided as Attachment 1; B. Note the comments on the progress of all initiatives provided as Attachment 2; and C. Note the status of Council's Operational Key Performance Indicators provided as Attachment 3. Carried unanimously. 9. CONFIDENTIAL SESSION Nil. 10. MEETING CLOSURE The meeting closed at 2.14pm.
Meeting Transcript
Brian Stockwell 00:00.000
I declare the meeting open and wish to acknowledge the Kabi Kabi people, the traditional owners of this land, their elders past, present and emerging. We are all in attendance but we have Councillor Finzel and Councillor Lorentson attending. by online means. So welcome all. Confirmation of minutes. Would someone like to move? I'll move. Move Councillor Wilkie. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Wegener. I presume there's no discussion. All those in favour? Yes. Karen Finzel 00:33.394
Yes. Brian Stockwell 00:34.234
That's unanimous. Thank you. We have no presentations, nor do we have deputations, so we're moving on to an item referred from committees, and there is one of those. It's item 7.1, it's a material change, reviews 210154.02. Application for a minor change to development approval for a home-based business, meat processing facility at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah. And we welcome Patrick, and we welcome Richard, and we welcome Andrew from the development control team to the table. And Andrew, give us an overview. Andrew 01:07.536
That's it. Thank you. Council is in receipt of an application for a change to a development approval for material change of use, home-based business processing facility at 82 Patterson Drive, Tinbeerwah. The change request relates to a number of the development parameters which are applicable to the site. When Council gave the approval back in 2021. I'm not sure if everybody is aware of the approval, but the approval given in 2021 relates to the processing of deer meat at the site. The Council, the current approval allows for up to 10 allows for up to 10 deers to be processed at the property once a week. So they are the sort of general parameters which are applicable to the site. The only other issue relevant at the moment is that only one person and resident of the site can occupy and undertake the home-based business use. So that's the current sort of set up. The applicant requested a change to the approval to allow up to two additional employees to assist at the site, mainly because the physical handling of the current approved number of deers to be processed at the site is too labour intensive for the owner and the applicant, so they would like to have an additional up to two people. To assist during the permitted hours of operation which are between 8:00 and 5:00pm. Monday to Friday. So the actual amendment would require a change to number Number of the conditions of the pruning to allow that to occur as well as to allow that to occur between the hours of 8:00 and 4:00pm. Monday to Friday. So at the moment the property is located within the rural residential zone and it occurs at an existing shed at the property located in the northwest corner of the property. So the shed is located approximately 15 metres from the road frontage and is accessed by one driveway battle axe handle to the rear of the site. Upon review of the relevant sort of matters and impacts relevant to the site this would involve an additional two car parking entrance, two vehicle movement R2, vehicle movement. vehicle movements in the morning to access the rear of the site to undertake the assistance at the shed and then the leaving of the property in the afternoon. So a total of four traffic movements per day at the site. Upon review of the application requested changes it is recommended that the the changes be approved and that the two additional staff members be allowed between the hours of 8:00 and 4:00pm. The applicant has also requested an extension of a lapsing date which is relevant to the site as well. Council had originally conditioned that the approval be reviewed after a two-year period and that was applicable to the 17th of December last year. That was requested by the by the applicant to be removed from the approval. The removal of that condition is not recommended but extended for an additional two year period until, so on a four year basis up until 2029. Brian Stockwell 04:55.340
Okay, do we have any questions? Yes, thank you for the report Andrew. The change doesn't represent an intensification of use on site, does it? That's right. So still 10 deer per week? Patrick Murphy 05:10.300
Same operating hours, same number of carcasses. operating hours, same number of carcasses to be brought onto the site in the same building, just additional staff. Frank Wilkie 05:18.837
And the extension of the two-year trial period, for want of a better word, allows you to monitor the operations if there's any complaints? Patrick Murphy 05:27.437
That's correct. We have extended it out by four years, a longer period than what was previously allowed. But in noting the change that's proposed, just to ensure that there's no complaints. Frank Wilkie 05:39.126
And during the previous two-year trial period, there were complaints lodged. Could you tell us about the findings when you investigated the complaints? Patrick Murphy 05:49.195
There were some issues raised around some landscaping, that it wasn't comprehensive enough in terms of what was required. So there was further landscaping that had been undertaken and signed off. Earlier last year there's also been some complaints around who's been attending the sites and vehicle movements. They've been investigated and haven't been substantiated. Brian Stockwell 06:26.760
My only question then is the under the State law now it's a code assessable application. I can't think of an instance where we have time limited a code assessable application. I just wonder the merits if we have had two years of operation without substantiated complaints. Whether it is reasonable and relevant to actually limit the four years on a code assessable application considering, you know, there's extra staff there for it. Up to four additional traffic movements on the days that they're actually operating. Point of order, is this a question, Mr Chair? You're probably right, I'm talking too long. So the question is, is it general practice to put time limits on code-accessible applications, and would this now be considered a code-accessible application? Patrick Murphy 07:21.188
That's a good question. I don't recall that we would have put time limits on a code-accessible application in the past. If a new application was made today, it certainly would accessible for this use. Fair to say there was some discussion amongst us as officers in terms of should we apply an extended period as well, or remove it completely. We fell on the side of being cautious in terms of the change, so appreciate. Brian Stockwell 08:04.120
I think I'll try an amendment. Well, it won't be an amendment. I'll just move the motion without the condition requiring a time limit, just to test what other councils are thinking on the matter. So that will be... I'm sorry, I haven't got the condition in front of me. Condition Patrick Murphy 08:23.980
21? Condition 21, but deleting Condition 21. Frank Wilkie 08:45.080
And take that out. Tom Wegener 09:02.800
I just think we've had two years of operation if anything having staff on site will mean the processing time is quicker so the potential yeah we haven't had any impact on amenity but that will go down. My feeling is that you know the State government's made it very clear that home-based businesses can't be any more than code accessible. And as I said my recollection is we've never put a time matching period on a code accessible application and hence I I think that the applicant has demonstrated that they can comply with conditions and not upset upset any of the neighbouring properties while conducting the home-based business, so I don't think it's necessary to have a four-year time-lapse period. Question. So, when we approved this... when we approved this, it wasn't code-assessable at that time. So, is that approval, it's obviously still valid. If we do this and say it's a code-assessable, well, it wasn't a code-assessable. It doesn't change the nature of the approval in the past. It's not retrospectively code-assessable. Is that right? Richard MacGillivray 10:11.661
Correct, Correct, yeah, so originally it was impact assessable and now with the changes late last year, any new application lodged can only be code assessable under the changes in the regulations, planning regulation changes, so it doesn't change anything that's retrospective. So the existing approval was impact assessable and decided, so none of that's changed, it's just moving forward any new applications would only be code assessable. Amelia Lorentson 10:37.883
Can I ask a question through the chair please? I'm going back to the report from our from Patrick and Andrew and agree with your agree with your assessment of the request to delete. delete, and your explanation was very quite clear, due to the unique nature of the use-- Point of order, Mr Chair, there's a question-- My question, thank you, thank you, Mayor, my question is in response to the reason that was outlined response to the reason that was outlined by Councillor Stockwell in terms of code assessment we've never required, you know, that an applicant come back every four years, have we ever had a meet process processing facility approved in the Noosa Shire. Patrick Murphy 11:29.177
In the almost ten years that I've been with Council I don't recall or I can say there hasn't been another facility like this approved. Right. Frank Wilkie 11:46.960
Look, I'll speak to the motion. I appreciate what Councillor Stockwell's tempted to do, his reasons are valid, but there was considerable interest, community interest, in this application when it first came to Council, and the precautionary principle applied. Then, and I think with the extra staff coming on board, I think the decision to include the extra period for monitoring is wise, it can't hurt, so for that reason testing this particular motion and the reasons behind deleting condition 21, but I won't be supporting this particular motion. In its current form. So, I'll signal that I'll be moving an amendment to refuse to delete condition 21. Brian Stockwell 13:05.200
So, would you like to do that then? Frank Wilkie 13:06.740
I will. I'll do that now. Excuse me, Mr Karen Finzel 13:10.680
Chair. Frank Wilkie 13:11.400
Yes. Karen Finzel 13:13.800
Yes, before we proceed. I did have my hand up. Before we do that, may I just ask a question? Brian Stockwell 13:19.076
You may, sorry. Frank Wilkie 13:20.556
Sorry, I'm in chain. Brian Stockwell 13:22.736
Oh, yeah, true. Sorry, Councillor Finzel. So, Councillor Wilkie had the floor and it's up to him. He has indicated he wants to proceed. he wants to proceed to move an amendment and then after, if that's moved and seconded, he can talk and then you can ask a question. So, it's the current motion. Frank Wilkie 13:37.188
Thank you. The current motion, but the change would be to Section B, refuse to delete Condition 21. David 13:54.140
To the current motion, but, um, that, refuse. Frank Wilkie 14:00.860
To delay condition one, twenty-one. be substituted for the second. Part B. No, that, um, refuse to delete. that, um, refuse to delete condition twenty-one. To be substituted... Brian Stockwell 14:21.754
So if, if you, if you just put that and nothing else. Yep. Take all those words after that off. Yep. And then after... then after B, put the word 'refuse' and 'refuse to'. Isn't that going to get back to the original? It's still an amendment. Frank Wilkie 14:39.985
It's an amendment, because this is the... Councillor Stockwell has moved a motion. I That is the motion that's been moved before. Richard MacGillivray 14:43.416
Think the City Leader can put that, because it's 'refuse to' to. It's a motion that I'll have to remember. Thank If mine was an amendment, you'd have to wait for that to go through, but because it was a motion, it's only partially amending that's in this. Frank Wilkie 15:05.495
So it would be that B, that B, refuse to delete condition 21, B, inserted. B included. Frank Wilkie 15:15.894
No, B included. Condition 21, B included. David 15:19.054
Okay, I refuse to delete condition 21 and B included. No. Frank Wilkie 15:33.900
Or it would probably be more accurate to say "replace" replaces "be". Brian Stockwell 15:39.020
Replace item "be" with the words. Replace. Frank Wilkie 15:44.600
Go back again? Yeah. David 15:49.380
Replace item "be". Frank Wilkie 15:50.880
Get rid of "be". David 15:52.280
Okay, that. Frank Wilkie 15:54.080
Get rid of that. Replace item "be" with... Amelia Lorentson 16:15.380
A question through the chair please. Councillor Stockwell or maybe question to CEO. Is the replacement of the condition, is it ultra virus? Are we better just to vote on the motion and then if Councillor Wilkie wants to move forward the original recommendation that we do so? I'm just concerned by that what his concern by that what his intent is directly opposite your intent. Just a question for the CEO. Brian Stockwell 16:51.407
Yeah, no, it's a call of the chairs, not CEOs. As my motion was in Glovo and Globo and had one condition removed and Councillor Wilkie is only changing that one condition. It definitely is just an amendment to the motion. It's not a direct negative. If he was to move that the matter be refused, that would be a direct Frank Wilkie 17:37.040
There was no one on line who wished to second that? No. So the amendment lapses. Brian Stockwell 17:50.880
So we proceed on with the motion. So only Councillor Wilkie and myself have talking to talk to the motion. Tom Wegener 17:59.199
Okay procedurally. Karen's had her head up, sorry Karen. Brian Stockwell 18:02.599
Karen, your turn for question. Karen Finzel 18:05.279
Thank you Mr Chair. Just a question to help inform this decision. Regarding the process around managing retrospectively matters before us, given the new conditions by the State for code accessible for home-based what is the process moving forward? Do we have to stick to the original recommendation back when this was first moved or, like, what is the process when it comes to retrospective When it comes to a retrospective decision, do we have to stick to the original or can it be changed? I just need that bit of information to take this to the vote. Richard MacGillivray 18:52.068
Yes, so the applicant has sought to change the original approval, so what we're considering today are just the elements that are being sought to be changed. We're not retrospectively seeking to take away any provisions. We're not retrospectively seeking... The applicant's applied for changes to their approval and we're considering the elements of that change right now, so it doesn't necessarily affect anything. Historical, what's been decided has been decided. We're just assessing the elements of the changes that the applicant has sought, so that's what we're limited to in terms of our assessment. The regulation changes that the Deputy Mayor raised Right. before relate to new applications moving forward. So a fresh application for a home-based business would be code-assessable now, as opposed to one such as this was impact-assessable Prior prior to to the change to the regulations I hope that helps to clarify and yes that's clarified thank you and just a question if the application was a fresh and was assessed against the code with the application compliance Patrick Murphy 20:05.740
So our table of assessment I just go back a little bit allow for accepted development and it has certain provisions that must be met and some of those elements are included in the code assessment as well I've had a look at the those provisions the accepted development provisions to see whether this would actually make accepted development because the vehicle movements are likely to cause noise beyond the property boundary that would trigger it to code assessment so my review I think that's about the only provision it wouldn't Brian Stockwell 20:46.220
So that would trigger a code as opposed to considering under the code whether that impact of noise meets the performance objective. That's correct. And in your reporting you've identified that you believe the noise generated from the site does meet the performance outcomes? And is there, if it was to be submitted afresh, and your assessment was that considering that, does the act require that council must approve a code accessible application that meets the performance outcomes of the code? Patrick Murphy 21:06.320
That's correct. Brian Stockwell 21:21.368
It does. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Tom Wegener 21:29.780
So, my question is, procedurally, I'm not really excited about your amendment, motion, motion, if this fails, then do we go back to the original, the staff recommendation? No, we wouldn't be able to accept it at this meeting because it's already been tried and tested and hasn't got seconded. Frank Wilkie 22:03.140
Question to the Chair, because that's what I tried to do through Karen Finzel 22:09.600
Yes and unfortunately I couldn't ask my question and had to wait as directed by the chair because I needed further information to understand the process before my before my Brian Stockwell 22:24.480
Now let me think if it might and now I'm wrong because the amendment didn't get a seconder it was never accepted so nothing other than this has been moved that's wrong so it doesn't block it being Amelia Lorentson 22:41.000
So to clarify, Councillor Stockwell, if this motion fails, we can move the staff recommendation. Brian Stockwell 22:51.500
I believe so. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 22:54.223
Which is what my amendment was. I think there's been a lack of understanding about what's occurring. That's okay. Yeah. Tom Wegener 23:05.163
Okay. So you brought an alternative motion. I thought our normal procedure was we have somebody move the staff recommendation. And then we make an amendment to the staff recommendation. That would have been preferable, wouldn't it? Yeah. Well, that's kind of the way, that's why I'm kind of, my gears are clogging up here. Yeah, I always do that. Brian Stockwell 23:25.797
Yeah, sorry. I just sought to get that item matter dealt with separately. As you say, it probably would have been better to be as an amendment. Yes. Frank Wilkie 23:35.817
Perfectly valid. Brian Stockwell 23:43.080
So, if there's no one else wish to speak to the motion, I'll put the motion. I still support it. I'll wave my right. That's Councillor Wilson and Councillor Stockwell. Those against the motion. That's Councillor Wilkie, Wegener, Phillips, Finzel and Lorentson. Frank Wilkie 24:05.556
I'll move the staff recommendation. Brian Stockwell 24:07.736
Against, yes. Frank Wilkie 24:09.336
I'll move the staff recommendation. Okay. Brian Stockwell 24:12.416
Do we have a seconder for the staff recommendation? Moved by Councillor Wilkie. Karen Finzel 24:16.964
Happy to support for the debate yes. Brian Stockwell 24:20.504
That's Councillor Finzel second, Councillor Wilkie you may speak. Thank you um your councillors this is uh essentially what I was um what you see before you is what I was moving through the amendment to Councillor Stockwell's motion which means refusing to delete commission 21 means Happy to support. Frank Wilkie 24:38.684
To delete commission 21 means that there will be that trial period with with for the new arrangements and the two new staff are allowed to work on site and everything else is as per the staff recommendation so I think the staff have done their I think the staff have done their due diligence in this regard, even though all the complaints made regarding this property and business during the last two year trial period were found to be unsubstantiated. I think it's wise to take precautions and still have that trial period continue for another few years to see if the extra staff on site cause any amenity. Amelia Lorentson 25:41.300
Councillor Finzel can go first. She had her hand up. Thank you. Is your hand up for another question, Councillor Finzel? Karen Finzel 25:47.360
Yes, thank you, Councillor Lorentson, and thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, I'd just like to reiterate, I think that I'm in support of retaining this condition because I think it does give that greater level of assurity and comfort to the people that have raised their very relevant concerns around this home-based business, so I do support this because I do think it gives us another layer of opportunity to be able to address anything that arises now and into the future. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 26:26.444
Your question, Councillor Lorentson? A question to Andrew. Amelia Lorentson 26:32.800
I'm referring to the permit, the original permit, condition number 21. It states that this permit lapses on 17 December 2022 unless written consent is provided by Council to extend the approval. In assessing an extension, Council will have regard to extension, Council will have regard to any complaints received from nearby residents concerning breaches of the development approval conditions and any other relevant matters. I'm just seeking clarification of other relevant matters. Patrick Murphy 27:10.880
I'll try and answer that one, Councillor. It doesn't relate to the relevant matters we might have discussed within the planning legislation. It was just allowing for a broad scope of assessment by the officers to consider any matters that may be relevant. Not limiting it to just complaints that may have been received, but allowing, as I said, a broader scope of assessment. Amelia Lorentson 27:40.120
I'll speak to this, if that's okay. So, I'm not going to support the recommendation in front of us. I don't support A, the recommendation A, which is to approve the application and agree to change condition 10 to allow two employees at the site between the hours of 8:00 to 4:00pm. Monday to Friday. And I also don't support the recommendation C, which is delete condition 6 of the original permit. And I'll speak to the original permit, which stated clearly, and was also agreed to by the applicant, that the approved use must be conducted by and I also don't Use must be conducted by a permanent resident or residents of the detached house. It was clearly articulated that no employees are permitted. Today I'm just going to speak clearly. And straightforward. I'm going to ask the councillors today to prioritise the interests of the young family that are living 45 metres from the meat processing facility. We shouldn't allow the addition to employees, and it's my opinion that we keep the current permit conditions, which still allows the resident of the dwelling to operate the business without any employees. To me, that's the right thing to do. It's also a win-win. We acknowledge and respect the wishes of this young family, and we also acknowledge that stress and anxiety Anxiety and anxiety are real impacts. I'm going to refer to one of the many emails that I've received and I think planning staff have also received. This one is from the neighbour and she states that... Just hold on a moment. I'm just concerned about privacy legislation. Would councillors be prevented from raising a matter if it has been raised as a complaint? Richard MacGillivray 30:03.471
Yes, councillor, I would apply caution regarding Privacy Act principles in terms of releasing details. No, thank you Amelia Lorentson 30:13.148
Richard, thank you and I respect that. I withdraw, I won't talk about that. My reasons not supporting the addition of the extra two employees and just retain the original permanent conditions is that again it's the it's a win win. The applicant can still operate the business if they want to expand and if they want to employ two additional workers they still can by considering perhaps relocating to a light industrial area and I just think that the solution to retain the current permanent conditions benefits both the applicant and the neighbour. Condition 21 of the development approval and we just heard from the planning staff states that council will consider complaints from the residents about breaching about breaches of the approval condition and other relevant matters. So I put it to the councillors, stress and anxiety recognised under work, health and safety laws are in my opinion. Relevant matters that must be taken into account. The young family, again, living only 45 metres from the meat processing shed, had three children aged 16, 14 and Brian Stockwell 31:42.295
Oh, excuse me. Excuse me. Jessica Phillips 31:46.935
I don't believe we should be talking about ages of children living next door. Amelia Lorentson 31:50.595
I respect that, but there's a young family... living next door and I just think that they have put in complaints to council and I accept that the complaints have not been substantiated. They have been dismissed, but I think their persistence and the number of complaints highlights at the least the severity of their struggles. Our planning laws Our planning laws identify noise, light, odour as impacts but they don't explicitly recognise mental stress and anxiety. Again, I stress under condition 21 that I believe that these should be considered as other relevant matters. Brian Stockwell 32:42.322
Thank you, Councillor. Just a question in regard to number of employees. Was I right in recalling that the State government amendments made it that councils couldn't limit number of employees to any less than two? Is that right? Or people working on site? Patrick Murphy 33:03.022
Working on site. Amelia Lorentson 33:04.149
Point of order, Councillor Stockwell. Point of order, Is it appropriate for you to be interrupting me midway through my speaking? Brian Stockwell 33:11.129
Oh, sorry, I've got to go to the City Council. I do apologise. No, Amelia Lorentson 33:15.169
I haven't. Thank you. Yes, it is, if I wish to. I'll hold it over and I'll let you finish. Sorry. Thank you very much. Again, I reiterate, mental stress and anxiety are real impacts that affect the wellbeing of our residents. And we know this from speaking to residents living next door and surrounded by STAs. Noosa Plan is a community document and it's designed specifically to protect our residents. I'm going to refer to section 12 of the Local Government Act that a councillor must represent the current and future interests of the residents of the local government area. In 2021 Mayor Wilkie has already expressed that there was opposition to this application and the residents stood alongside the family living next family living next door to the meat processing facility. Today I'm asking that we stand beside this young family and acknowledge that stress and anxiety are real impacts. I ask that we prioritise the wellbeing of this young family while still allowing the applicant to operate his business. By retaining the current conditions that allows no employees to operate and conduct the approved use, we again still allow the applicant to continue to operate his business and And to also consider relocating to a more suitable area for their business while protecting the health and well-being of nearby residents. We talk lots about putting people before profits. I think today will be a really good example of us doing that. Thank you. Frank Wilkie 35:09.348
Question of staff: Is this application entirely consistent with the Noosa Yes. Richard MacGillivray 35:17.620
And just for some relevance, the code talks about up to six employees on rural and more residential land being able to assist with home-based businesses. Frank Wilkie 35:30.600
So this application is half the allowable number under the... the allowable number under the existing planning frameworks, which taking into account impacts on resident amenity. Was it true that the complaints about ODA were investigated and found to be none? Patrick Murphy 35:51.274
That's correct. Yes. Thank you. Question. Jessica Phillips 35:56.774
Is there any way through the process of this that commissions like any... I just want to know, I guess, is there ways that we can maybe try a little harder to impose any conditions that might negate some of that? That's my first question. I've got another one after. Andrew 36:28.550
Councillor, I undertook our site inspection in the middle of January, too, because I haven't seen the actual operation. When you arrive at the property, there is an existing landscape buffer on the adjoining property's, basically, boundary. That's a fairly established landscape buffer already. It runs the full length of the driveway to the back of the shed. there's also extensive landscaping around the shed. So, you would have to be at the shed to view it, I think, to see the shed. Aside from that, there is predominance of established landscaping along the length of the boundary between the two properties at the moment. So, there may be some opportunities for some minor additional landscaping, but because of the amount already there in place, it would be It would be, you know, something that could be done as a token sort of thing I suppose but, you know, there is substantial landscaping within the property already. It was also a condition of the previous approval that some infill planting undertaken. That has been done and it's been basically shown by the applicant where that's occurred. I saw that on the day I was there as well. Brian Stockwell 37:50.372
When you attend to you, is it appropriate ever to go to the neighbours to see? I know sometimes you can get one view from one. Has that ever been tested? I guess to make sure that it's appropriate from the neighbouring as well? Andrew 38:06.241
To enter their site to look? I didn't do that all the day. I did offer to meet the neighbour, but there was an email error, so I So I wasn't able to meet the neighbouring person on the day. Jessica Phillips 38:21.710
And just one more question please, or I'll have it before. the State legislature about six employees, does that open us up if it was refused? Is there any way they can? Patrick Murphy 38:38.091
So the State, the planning regulations have provisions around home-based business now, and they state that a planning scheme can't require or restrict the number of people on site to less than two. Our planning scheme allows up to six. So you can have, your planning scheme can be more liberal than the requirements of the planning regulations in this regard, but it couldn't be more stringent. Our planning scheme could not one staff member on site because that would be contra, a contravention of the two. But as I said, our scheme allows up to six and also it allows up to 10 people on four occasions a week if you were conducting a class such as a yoga school or something like that. Brian Stockwell 39:24.198
Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 39:27.158
Yes, thank Just off the back of Councillor' question, trying to negotiate a reasonable outcome for everyone involved, especially when we do talk about stress, mental health and wellbeing. know, that could work both ways in this situation when you look at the stress and the mental health and wellbeing, not only for the next door neighbours, but also the young family running the business next door. We did receive correspondence for the neighbouring property. We did raise it at the P &E committee. COMMISSIONER BENNETT: Yes, there is. Thank you. My question is: Did the staff, following the P &E meeting, speak to both parties with regards to construction of a fence as requested by the neighbouring property to negotiate an equitable outcome? Andrew 40:27.020
No, I would say the answer would be no. Sorry, I didn't hear that. There is actually, I guess, a bamboo sort of fence in place. I believe it's a chain wire fence running between the two properties. sort of screening device which includes a sort of a makeshift sort of bamboo screen at the entrance of the property. I'm unsure whether it runs the full length of the actual boundary. I wasn't able to I physically get think just it's important to know what we're assessing is a change to an existing approval to allow an additional two staff members on the site and in that the regard imposition of a condition for a paling fence along a 50 metre long boundary would be unreasonable. If that's our opinion, yeah. Karen Finzel 41:25.732
I didn't hear, sorry, I just didn't clearly hear the answer because I'm just wondering is there opportunity to... Is there opportunity to condition the fence to protect the health and well-being around I'll repeat in short form what the manager of Delta Control said. Brian Stockwell 41:46.143
Basically he said because we're dealing with a application to only change two conditions in their opinion it would not be reasonable nor relevant to condition a new fence along condition a new fence along the boundary between the two properties, and I think that's repeating the advice from the Planning and Environment Committee as well. Richard MacGillivray 42:06.964
And could I just, sorry, just add to that, Councillor, just again be mindful around Privacy Act provisions. Just referring to other parties and correspondence and the like is not really appropriate. So just if we can be cautious and careful relating to those matters. Thank you. Andrew 42:25.213
Can I also add some thoughts? Thanks. Please. During the initial assessment of the request for change, I had a conversation with the applicant who raised, I guess, the costs involved in going through these processes with Council. That was probably the primary focus of their concern, having to come back to apply and reapply for extensions to the approval. I was conscious at the time that he was wary of having to come wary of having to come back to Council, because it does typically involve engaging planning consultants to make those applications back to Council and paying fees. So I think the addition of a substantial fence would be something which would be a big financial cost to the applicant, which they probably wouldn't, would like to. To undertake, unless it achieved an outcome which would improve the situation at the site already, there doesn't appear to be any sort of reasonable need for such a substantial structure, and also the actual physicality of building a fence of that length along the boundary would require probably the removal of a lot of vegetation that's already in place to get Brian Stockwell 43:48.740
Okay, so do we have any other questions. Amelia Lorentson 43:51.580
I do, and I just referenced condition 19 that requests that the access handle must be densely landscaped with native plants and shrubs to provide a dense screen of vegetation between the driveway and neighbouring residence. Is it, can we request additional screening, planting in certain locations along the driveway to comply with that condition of the approval without amending the motion that's in front of us? Can that be just done as of, just again, to comply with condition 19 and 20 of the approval? Patrick Murphy 44:35.413
Well, there is an ongoing Well, there is an ongoing requirement for the approval holder to have that landscaping installed and maintained. Officers have been to the site and confirmed that the landscaping has been undertaken and that condition has been signed off. Andrew's recent site inspection noted a very small section at the front of the property where there is a, like a thatch. property where there is a thatched style fence, which can be seen, but the remainder of the property is well landscaped and we would consider it is compliant with the condition. Frank Wilkie 45:10.863
We'll be just following on from what where I think Councillor is going with her question. Is it the case that given the Noosa planning scheme allows up to six employees on site, that if we refuse this application for an additional two, the applicant would be within their rights to appeal to the Planning and Environment Court? Brian Stockwell 45:40.620
Yes, thank you. Karen Finzel 45:43.700
So that leads back to my question which was regarding the process and the cost of a fence. I'm just wondering if we negotiate a condition or agree on a condition for the fence, you know, when we're talking about P and E, cost of P and E courts, cost of health and wellbeing and mental health to all parties. Brian Stockwell 46:05.377
You're being very discursive. Okay, my question is, my question is, does the process allow for Council today to condition the building of a fence? Thank you, Mr Chair. Jessica Phillips 46:50.460
I'll speak to the motion. This business or home business has already been approved the addition of two staff isn't going to change the intensity of the business it's just to help the owner. Speaking about health and safety at the moment if the applicant was to fall ill or injured they wouldn't be able to have anyone on site to help them so the business would pretty much fall over so having up to two employees on staff is obviously to help the business to be sustained under its current conditions. I don't believe the arrival of one or two cars in the morning and departure in the afternoon is anything unreasonable compared to the level of vehicle. I think these things are reasonable compared to the level of vehicle movements that might occur in a general household. So I think these things are a reasonable application for a minor change. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 47:44.116
And Phyllis? Jessica Phillips 47:45.276
Just my last question, listening to Ryan. Is there any way between now and Thursday for a room meeting, that there's any way... conversation around a condition of offence or something can be spoken to with the applicant to maybe make everyone's... meet everyone's needs, I We can always go back and speak to the applicant. Patrick Murphy 48:09.772
I think in terms of what Andrew has said, they're finding the application process onerous, financially as it is, so I'd be very surprised if they would be agreeable. Richard MacGillivray 48:20.728
And that opportunity already lies there from a civil perspective and parties can share the costs of establishing a fence along their boundary as well, so the concerns mentioned by Andrew earlier is that that might result in some clearing of vegetation. establish a fence and there is already some screening of that sort of fence structure that's already in that location as well, so we would put it to you that the owners, that the parties could always talk at any stage to agree to installing a structure. Karen Finzel 49:00.880
Yes, thank you. Based on that question through the Chair or the CEO of the staff then, are we able to, can I put forward a motion today that we don't make this decision until we provide opportunity for the two parties to talk about shared expenses for erecting a fence to try and achieve an equitable outcome for all parties? Brian Stockwell 49:26.496
That will be up to you to move the procedural motion, Councillor. I'll talk to the motion. The planning scheme offers a lot of strategic support for initiatives such as this where packed we're getting plate niche markets for food, small scale enterprises that are taking advantage of our locality and also the interest in a range of different foods that can be either grown or harvested off our landscape. This one has the dual benefit that it is actually controlling the federal animals at the same time as creating a niche gourmet meat product. It has operated successfully without any substantiated problems. We have at the time of the initial application gone out of sight and could not hear. Anything happening within the shed from as soon as you got out basically. So nothing like anyone with experience mowing the lawn for example. There was actually no noise. no noise coming from the establishment and it has very minor visual impact on any aspects of the neighbourhood. So I believe the So, I believe the request in the application and the staff report are the appropriate ways to hit. Karen Finzel 50:57.137
Well, I'd like to move a procedural motion through the Chair, please. Sure. let's take it to the vote and see if we get appetite around the table to postpone this matter until the staff have had opportunity to speak to the neighbouring parties and see if there can be a resolution found with regards to constructing a Richard MacGillivray 51:58.680
Council I had, I mean obviously without getting into the wording, have concerns around requiring two parties to come together and make a very important financial decision in a very short time frame under the obligation that we're The obligation that we're assessing a development application and they're evaluating a decision that they could make at any point in time. I just question again the reasonableness and relevance of of requiring staff to be set on a task to engage with independent parties on the basis of having a conversation about offence. So whilst happy to assist some wording that would be my only comment in relation to the expectation of staff to create the situation for to create the situation for parties to come back to council. So that would be my only question just to give some further consideration before we finalise some drafting. Brian Stockwell 53:12.153
What the standard deferral motion is and then council will have a chance to discuss the merits of such a proposal. Patrick Murphy 53:20.753
It dates to between February to allow. Tom Wegener 53:34.340
Can you say the word be deferred? Richard MacGillivray 53:37.040
The word be deferred to allow staff to engage. Engage with relevant parties in relation to the establishment of a boundary fence. relation to the establishment of a boundary fence. Karen Finzel 54:18.840
Question to the staff, do you think we make it less prescriptive and have it just negotiate alternative outcomes or do you think we have to, I mean the reason also I'm raising this is based on your comment that the boundary fence would be a shared cost. I've also been looking at costs moving forward to all parties as well, and also very mindful of the-- Councillor, I'm going to call you up. Brian Stockwell 54:44.296
It's your motion. If you wish to move issues or something-- Sure. Karen Finzel 54:47.456
Okay, let's-- Thank Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the staff. I'm happy to move it. Let's put it to the vote and see what happens. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 55:08.820
The matter left us to one of the second. We got back to you. Thank you, everyone. Does anyone wish to talk to the motion? I'll then go back to Councillor Wilkie and your opportunity to have the right of the review. Frank Wilkie 55:33.080
Yeah, look, I think there's been some very good points made about the reasons for approving this application under the scheme. In this zone they can have up to 6 employees on site. It is a valid rural enterprise. If councillors don't like outcomes that are permissible under the current planning scheme then we don't vote against the planning scheme. We seek to amend the planning scheme. Planning schemes signal to the community what's permissible. It is unfair to have it is unfair to have this information out there to have residents make applications in good faith, go to the expense of making applications in good faith and then have their applications refused after going to all that expense for reasons that are contrary to the planning scheme. If we don't like it, we amend the planning scheme. I would urge councillors to support the process and this motion. Brian Stockwell 56:49.721
Wilson. Against. Stockwell. Against. And those against would be Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Finzel. The motion is carried. Amelia Lorentson 57:03.021
Councillor Lorentson. Brian Stockwell 57:09.140
So we move on to play. It's cancelled on until we've noted your vote against. Frank Wilkie 57:21.440
Any problems with sound? Okay. Brian Stockwell 57:25.960
We move on to item 8, reports read to the general committee. And the first is 8.1 on the new tenant intensity, A2, Peregian Digital Hub. Frank Wilkie 57:35.820
Excuse me, Mr Chair, out for a second. Brian Stockwell 57:40.380
And up. We're blessed with the janitor's presence. Now we have the, I think you've got a thing, the manager of the Bridging Digital Hub. The director of the Bridging Chris 58:02.460
Digital Hub, and he's here to give Councillor, thank you for the opportunity. We have four office spaces at the Digital Hub in addition to the shared workspace. That individuals and small teams take up from time to time. We have changes in tenancies and under the council. Council procurement process. We rely on our commercial real estate partner Colliers to help us keep those facilities tenanted with organizations that Organisations that meet the objectives of the Digital Hub, which are to build the tech and digital sector in the region, and this is really just an update to inform Council that one of those tenancies has been vacated and that we've secured a replacement tenant, and that there's, you know... And that there's, you know, quite a nice story about the replacement tenant which is that it's three individuals that have met through the digital hub over the last number of months and have decided to form a new company and in doing progressed from having an individual sort of co-work space or co-work desk to taking a lease with Council to build their company and hopefully be very successful in our environment. And they're in the technology recruitment space. It's a company called NextPlay. So helping clients find technology talent and these days using very clever technologies to put employers and employees together so that's it in a nutshell we you know Well, as a facility that tries to provide an environment for business growth, sometimes we have wins and sometimes we have losses in the sense that early stage companies sometimes find success and grow and sometimes even need to graduate out of our environment. Others might not be sustainable. Other other early stage companies might not sustain and and may die and you know in both of those cases we we have to find replacement tenants so our objective is of course to through that process meet both the the sort of fiduciary the of the procurement process but also ensure that we minimise any revenue losses in between tenants leaving and new tenants being secured and in this case we've managed to do that so yes that's the that's it in a nutshell. Brian Stockwell 01:01:03.565
Do we have any questions? Jessica Phillips 01:01:05.865
I have a question. Forgive me if I miss this in the report. Is that base rental a commercial base? Chris 01:01:15.252
That is a commercial rate and we do consider we do consider discounts as any sort of commercial landlord would I guess. In this instance we decided that because the lease was for an initial one year period that a discount couldn't be justified so we managed to agree with the tenant that it would be the regular full rate for that period. Brian Stockwell 01:01:49.125
I have a question. Amelia Lorentson 01:01:54.685
Question, will the commercial lease with NextPlay be executed in house without Chris 01:02:05.860
A loan? We have used an external firm for all of our leasing up until now in terms of agreements and extensions. So the intention wasn't to bring that in-house necessarily, but this is the first one we've had since we've had in-house Council, so I guess I could take that on notice. Maybe. Amelia Lorentson 01:02:31.526
Thank you very much. Brian Stockwell 01:02:35.792
Okay. Does someone wish to move the motion? Councillor Wegener? I'm taking it. Tom Wegener 01:02:45.092
Well, of course. You know, I support the staff recommendation to give this lease. And you know what? The Digital Hub and yourself for continuing on, and this seems like a great success in that from within the Digital Hub itself, we've created a new business that's going to have the space there. Congratulations. And to me, it's almost like a double whammy because they are taking technology to help other startups. So you're actually creating a startup to help other startups. That's fantastic. Thank you, Councillor. Chris 01:03:23.276
Yeah, it's bittersweet, in fact, because the tenancy that they're replacing is a company that has been very successful at the digital hub that has expanded and is setting up the HQ in Los Angeles. So you sort of sometimes either Angeles. So you sort of, sometimes you're the victim of your own success in this regard, but whilst the leaders of that company have moved, they've left a team in Peregian Beach that is growing. So we sort of get the best of both worlds there. But that's, to some extent, that is a sign of success is if we can help companies grow and they outgrow the facilities that we have, but we want to make sure that they keep some economic presence here, of course, because, you know, it's about creating jobs and opportunities. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:04:10.040
Anyone else wish to speak? Frank Wilkie 01:04:11.600
No, I'd just also congratulate you, Chris, and your team down there on the work you're doing. Especially, it's not just the tenancies that you're running out. It's the work you're doing to up-skill the younger generation in coding and digital technologies. They're going to be the digital leaders of the future. They'll be able to create their own businesses and work Businesses and work anywhere in the globe and it's it's this vacancy as you said it shows that the digital hub is working as intended where startups come in they grow they expand and they move on and create more employment and prosperity elsewhere preferably within our Shire but it's it's a Chris 01:05:01.408
Thank you, Matt. Thanks again to everyone for the support in terms of, as you say, the role the hub plays in skill development and knowledge development. I don't think there's ever been a more important time for that. So you'll be hearing a lot from us in that regard this year, particularly with the rise of AI and making sure that our community benefits from that. So there'll be a lot of activity we'll keep you posted on. Thank you. Karen, you speak. Yes, thank you. I'd like to speak to the mayor before us. Firstly, thank you to the Digital Hub and the report. This is an exciting... As you say, we're at an intersection in time that's really exciting, and I'm sure our residents will be equally as excited as we work diligently towards a sustainable future. Where we look at diversifying our economy to also try and manage the impacts of congestion and lack of job opportunities and things like that. So, I'm really pleased to support this motion. I'm excited that it is visionary and moving forward that the Digital Hub, and everyone there keeps chipping away at these visions moving It's going to bring us all along and hopefully find meaningful solutions to our community on those issues that meet with them every day in the street where they're at, so happy to support this and looking forward to future endeavours in this space around expanding our economy and our diversification towards other businesses away from tourism to meet the expectations of Amelia Lorentson 01:07:05.224
Oh, I did, but I don't know whether anyone heard me. No? Oh, hello? Oh excuse me. I just briefly want to talk to you because I'm about to leave the meeting after this report, but I want to just reference the huge space that the Digital Hub plays in workforce and capability planning, and that's coming soon in the reports under our operational... under our operational reporting. Part of our corporate plan 2023-2028, we've identified, you know, the importance of workforce and capability planning and I think the question that I always ask is have we in Noosa got the capacity and capability to deliver services to our community and meet future challenges? And I think that's the huge space that you guys are filling and it's a really, really important space. We talk about jobs of the future, jobs we don't even know exist. And we also talk about redesigning jobs and how, you know, as a fire, we keep identifying it as one of our risks in almost every report that comes to council, resourcing constraints. constraints. So I think it's... So I think you play an important space in how we rethink jobs and fill that space of capacity and capability. So thank you, Chris. Look forward to all the great stuff you do and keep up the great work. Chris 01:08:46.676
Thank you very much, Councillor. Brian Stockwell 01:08:48.316
Okay. So, Councillor Wilson, back to you first. Thank you. Yeah, just looking forward to the report on the student activities over the holidays. That's really exciting as well. But yeah, that's it. Thank you. Okay. Okay. we're at a vote. Oh, we need a vote, yes. All those in favour? Yes. Is that all you think, Councillor Finzel? Amelia Lorentson 01:09:15.028
Thank you, and I'm leaving the meeting, thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:09:19.148
I'll just wait, Councillor Finzel, if you can do a hand up. I'll take a hand up if it's being a yes. It's being muted. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:30.560
Yes, thank you. Yes. Brian Stockwell 01:09:34.400
Thank you, and we will note that... Thank you very much. Amelia Lorentson 01:09:38.780
Appreciate it, thank you, Chair. Bye. Brian Stockwell 01:09:43.500
Okay, we move on to 8.2, and that's the financial performance report. Margaret Gatt 01:09:58.060
We table the monthly finance report as at 31st of January 2025 and I'll hand over to Pauline, our manager of finance, to take us through the detail of the report. Brian Stockwell 01:10:09.436
And I would, just for the purpose of the record, we have an Acting Director of Corporate Services here with us for the next 12 months and hence why you're not seeing Trent. Pauline 01:10:24.980
Good afternoon Councillors. So firstly, Councillors should note that the January report is now reflective of Budget Review 2 which was adopted by Council last month. Financial performance for the month of January continues to be positive with operating revenues continuing to outperform forecast and operating expenditure under budget at this stage of the year. Operating revenues $1.6 million above budget which is primarily being driven by interest revenue of $1.1 million almost $300,000 from sales of goods and services, $164,000 from grant programs and $240,000 from other revenue sources. This has been offset however by lower than forecast fees and charges with development assessment fees down $350,000 noting that there are several large There are several large DA applications currently being assessed, but however, due to the stage of completion on those, that revenue has not yet been recognised. Building and plumbing fees, however, are up. hundred and twenty seven thousand dollars year to date. Operating expenditure is seven hundred and seventy thousand dollars under budget at this stage of the year, with employee costs three hundred and forty six thousand dollars under budget. it. I'd like to I'd like you to note that this is due primarily due to the timing of our staff taking annual leave, so there's a large continuum of staff taking leave over December through January, and due to the way that we profile that, that has kind of dipped down quite a bit. So that's sort of driving some of that. Materials and services: $190,000 under budget at this stage. We do have overspends currently showing in civil operations of $342,000, and holiday parks is, 000 and Holiday Parks is $104,000 over budget as well. You will note with Holiday Parks that they have a corresponding increase in their revenue line, which also have a corresponding commission line through their reports, so that correlates to their revenue. Waste is currently $428,000 underspent, and that relates to the forecast contract and rise in their contracts not being as high as we anticipated. But overall, Council's year-to-date operating position at January 2025 is 2 which will be utilised to fund any emergent issues that happen throughout the year. Capital revenue is $9 million above budget, and that's due to the timing of our profiling and receipt of QA. disaster funding and our SEQ CSP funding. Capital expenditure is behind budget to $28.4 million, with $18.3 million relating to our disaster projects and $10.1 million relating to Council's base capital program. This variance is driven largely by budget profiling and the timing of the project delivery. Council is currently holding $110 million in cash reserves with... $30 million continuing to be invested in higher yielding to term deposits. We have not invested additional funds in term deposits because UTC, where we hold the balance of our funds, is also offering quite high yields at this stage as well. At this stage of the financial this stage of the financial year, Council's financial performance remains on track, subject to any emergent issues that may arise for the remainder of the year. Brian Stockwell 01:13:33.526
Thank you. So, questions, councillors? Frank Wilkie 01:13:37.986
Yes, thank you very much for the report. I had a question about civil operations expenditure, which is higher than expected. Does that mean it's been a higher than expected work rate, or higher than expected? Pauline 01:13:52.686
So we have done some investigation and some of it was some repropiling. However, parks and gardens continue to be higher than we had originally forecast in terms of some arborist services and mowing contracts. So we are doing some more work on that in terms of looking at the timing of that work and seeing where that ends for the remainder of the year. Richard MacGillivray 01:14:19.183
In the budget process for last financial year we actually executed savings of about $900,000 in the civil assets and operations budget to actually balance the books. We're hoping that there will be a drier year in terms of vegetation growth and vegetation management. That hasn't borne fruition and we're actually seeing real costs actually bearing down the budget. You recollected for the councillors I had a good discussion about that, you know, trimming the budget, you know, achieves sustainability and financial expenditure but allowed very little room financial expenditure that allowed very little room for reactive works to actually respond to emerging issues, and certainly working with civil assets and operations to further refine the budget, but this is the direct consequences of budget savings. from last financial year as well. Frank Wilkie 01:15:03.725
So you're saying this is mainly vegetation, art, this work? Because of excessive growth? Richard MacGillivray 01:15:09.985
Yeah, that's a large part of it. Some of the initial investigations to take that some years ago, prior to this council, and prior to my executive involvement, there was a trimming in the roadside vegetation management budget associated with road safety. There used to be three passes and that's now down to one pass. And what's happening is that when we go to do prior We've been hit with significant vegetation clearing works to actually get the road to a safe standard because there needs to be clearance for the vegetation. So that's some of the things we're finding through investigation. The other thing we're finding is a increase in safety or traffic control. That there was legislative changes about three years ago and we haven't been fully implementing those safe practices and recently and we're now having to implement safe traffic control practices. Noting we have had some significant road safety incidents where people have been ignoring traffic control and driving into, you know, attempting to drive Frank Wilkie 01:16:28.611
Could you just explain why that would be statement of financial position so you're referring to provisions provisions Pauline 01:16:41.311
11 Million versus 8 million yes okay so the large proportion of the provisions relate to our landfill rehabilitation we don't we've several had a years with forecasting the life of that particular facility as well as the cost of doing that it was higher in previous years because we had a bit of a catch-up to do so that bumped our provisions up a little bit higher before than what but we we also consume those as we do capping works so you'll see we had originally booked us to do capping works which would have brought that provision down this year we also have employee provisions running through those lines as well so there hasn't been So there hasn't been, there's only like two million dollar reduction which we would expect to see coming down in particularly in relation to the landfill over time as we do works to remediate that site. Frank Wilkie 01:17:29.837
The below budget actuals for development assessment in some sort of context, reasons why? Pauline 01:17:35.957
Well development assessment charges are always dependent on the applications that come in or the works that are being conducted at the time so it can be, we can see different times, I'm not sure if Richard has any statistics in that respect. Richard MacGillivray 01:17:48.950
Through the chair, we're still getting the steady number of applications coming through, we're probably not getting as many new larger development applications. As Pauline mentioned, we do have a number of large applications which we are withholding some of the revenue from those fees as we progress through the application, so we release that revenue as we essentially earn it through the process. But overall we're not probably getting as much of that larger revenue DA as we would. We are looking at our fees and charges very closely for the upcoming budget to just make sure that the cost recovery principles are being adhered to. So that those lower end fees, we are recouping our full cost on those to make sure that we end up meeting our budget predictions. But we are finding that we are not getting as many as those big big new DA fees coming in. I like the reason for Brian Stockwell 01:18:46.800
Other questions? Karen Finzel 01:18:50.240
Yes, thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:18:51.680
Yes, thank you. Karen Finzel 01:18:54.880
Thank you for the report. Comprehensive as always. A question to the chair through the seat. And Chair, Trude Segoe, the staff is under budget to 346,000 underspend. Can you just tell me a little bit about the enterprise bargaining agreements and how those conversations are progressing in relation to Frank Wilkie 01:19:22.440
That? Yeah, I'm just thinking of what can be said here and what you'd like to know in this forum, Councillor. This is operating on the existing certified agreements. existing Certified Agreement, so the existing payments, yes the Certified Agreement has been negotiated, it technically finishes, well it's finished at the end of February, so we have a period now between the end of February and July, but we haven't finalised the negotiations of the new CA at this point in time, so we're making whatever allowances we think will be needed, but until it's finalised we don't know the Karen Finzel 01:20:07.940
Thank you. Yeah, just I'm not sure I'm going to direct this question through. Given we're coming in under budget, do you feel reasonably confident then that we'll be able to negotiate, you know, good outcomes for our staff that need to be either being moved from casual positions to full-time contracts or expecting, you know, they've gone up in a level through staff training, that we have... staff training that we have, you know, a budget position that we can provide assurance that we'll be able to manage these effectively. Brian Stockwell 01:20:41.191
I don't think I'll allow the question, Councillor. He's getting into matters that are currently under negotiations and that would, an appropriate answer may be to put those negotiations in that position. I respect that. Thank you, Mr Chair. I don't want to compromise any of that. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Okay. Other questions or does someone wish to move the motion? Karen Finzel 01:21:12.402
Happy to move. Brian Stockwell 01:21:13.662
Councillor Finzel, Senator, Councillor Wilkie. Over to you, Councillor Finzel. Karen Finzel 01:21:20.582
Thank you for the I think it's all been said. As always, the report, you know, gives us a clear indication of where we've been, where we are and where we're going. So keep up the good diligence and these reports are easy to read, easy to understand and I think it gives us a really clear indication of where we're headed. Thank you. Brian Stockwell 01:21:45.220
Anyone else wish to talk? No. No? Thank you both. Okay. So, Councillor, no one else wishes to talk, so you don't need to close unless you really want to. I'll put the motion... Happy to proceed, fine. Thank you. I'll put the motion, those in favour? And... Yes. That's unanimous. Okay, thank We'll move now to item 8.3, operation or plan, our 2024-25 second quarterly reporting. 14, and we'll go up to the next point. David 01:22:23.050
Good afternoon, everyone. So this report is the Q2 report, and it's already identified, and it covers the period the 1st of October to the 31st of December. all of our viewers, the requirement to report our progress is a statutory requirement, and the CEO has to report quarterly on our operational performance. So for... This report presents our performance against 107 initiatives by themes, and those themes relate to the corporate plan. Progress has been good this quarter, we've actually improved and got a number of projects back on track. 82% Are back on track. 82% Are either completed or on track with 17 encountering miners disruptions and two initiatives major disruptions and compared to the previous quarter we've actually been able to get a couple of projects back on track so so that's the hence that's shown in the in the figures. So the attachment one the Attachment 1 gives a detailed breakdown in the report by theme with all of the initiatives and their current progress and their status. There's also some general commentary around the current situation which impacts on our initiatives. Things like our very heavy community engagement calendar, some of the challenges we face with staff turnover and vacancies in key positions. some of the other issues around we have a number of significant plans and strategies which are yet to be finalised which does impact on the operational areas especially in relation to the number of projects they're managing but also being able to bring projects to completion. and then Attachment, too, just really a high order summary by in a spreadsheet of all of the initiatives by theme as well. Going forward that probably won't be produced in the report because we're aiming to actually produce the report from our new corporate planning system for the next round of reporting provided everything goes to plan. So it's a little bit it's still under development but we're nearly there. And then attachment three just provides an update on the operational KPIs that we've traditionally reported on with some commentary. There are a couple of areas where unfortunately commentary wasn't provided. We had a bit of a hiccup because this is these reports actually produced from produced from the system, and there are just a couple of areas, but I'm sure the directors will be able to answer any questions if you had any specifics on that. One that I'd probably like to highlight is the staff turnover figure, which is getting close to the 20%. If you do compare If you do compare it to Australian figures, the average turnover rate to December 24 was 14%, and in the public sector it's 18%. So we're not alone in this situation. So very reflective of public sector figures. Having said that, of course we need to focus on it, especially the delivery of a lot of our projects depends on having those staff, and there are some hot areas at the moment as well. Just a Just to clarify. Frank Wilkie 01:25:33.284
Clarifying question on that David, about 19%, is that specifically the second quarter? Yes. David 01:25:42.364
So it's not showing the current figures. current figure, for example, which would be reported in the next quarter. So it's to the 31st of December. Yeah. Frank Wilkie 01:25:51.824
And in terms of your research around that, the key reasons why there's that high turnout in the why there's that high turnout in the public sector at the moment? David 01:26:01.385
Well, would you like me to talk to that, Larry? I'll let you have a go if you want. Frank Wilkie 01:26:05.265
I think there's a whole lot of reasons. Yeah, look, there's a number of factors. You know, the... We've had difficulty for the last few years recruiting skilled people, protecting the technical engineering trades, given the amount of capital and infrastructure projects that are going on state-wise and even nationally. So there's that. There normally is movement between local governments, and local governments, traditionally, the way that you got promoted was that you applied for higher positions in other councils. The other is that... And, you know, we're not a large council, but we're a decent-sized council. So there is movement which just normally occurs in that regard. The other is that... The other is that the cost of living for employees to come to Noosa and live in Noosa is very high and you might find that you have someone who's actually been successful and when they get here trying to find a place to live is a problem and can they then afford to actually here and then take the position there are a number of factors you want to throw in anymore Larry? Larry Sengstock 01:27:07.848
I think it's just people that the general there's a general movement of people as well that people just move move roles moved roles where were in in the the past past they've they've stayed stayed longer longer in roles and that's a factor but I think it's cost of living, it's just a whole range of things that come to play in this and we are making a whole lot of moves as best we can to try to try to stabilise our workforce but unfortunately you think you've got it stable and then there's then there's a whole lot of competing requirements you know in we're losing losing staff and finding it difficult to find staff in our finance areas we've talked before but also in our project management area because there's so much work work going going on out there that people are either going back into the private sector or there are other jobs, the amount of construction that's going on just in the roads and new facilities that are being built and the Olympics coming, so there's a whole lot of work just constantly, so we're battling against that. And we are trying to make sure that we're competitive in the financial and remuneration as best we can, but we are a local government and we've got constraints there as well, but, so it's a difficult, difficult place to do and again, we're not immune to it, we're not, sorry, we're not alone to it, we're, the councils around us are having exactly the same issues. David 01:28:28.056
Yeah, and we have, the executive team has recognised this and updated the strategic risk register and some of the actions to And some of the actions to address that is reviewing our traction and retention strategies and developing a strategic workforce plan and progressing that, so that's been escalated in our strategic risk register as well, which was reported to the Audit and Risk Committee just last week. That's OK. Thank you. Just a question, please. Probably Probably through to the CEO. through to the CEO, I suggested at the SMO, if possible, for councillors to be able to make really informed decisions with the exit interviews that we're seeing with staff leave, if we could somehow see a workshop or a report around the reasons why, so we get a really good, detailed decision. Yeah. If I may as well just contribute something further. I think it's very important that going forward that, you know, that in what we're doing in relation to our employee engagement, into our leadership, that we continue to engage with our staff so they want to stay with Noosa Council and they are considered to be valued employees. So that work which is being Yep, sure, we can figure That work which is being headed by Amy in the employee engagement area is really important going forward and making sure, you know, the wellbeing of our staff so that people do actually, that we can try to retain people. That is an important factor, an important factor going forward. Frank Wilkie 01:30:02.050
Staff recognition awards afternoon, for example. Yep. Yep. Sorry, I interrupted you. No, that's fine. I'm happy to take on board any questions or the relevant directive can answer more specifically. Brian Stockwell 01:30:18.786
I'll just kick off. So you said we've got a new system coming through. While it's operational, the operational plan is one year, what we hope to achieve in one year from the corporate plan. When staff are reporting, are they looking directly at the operational plan or are they actually reporting against their branch plans down here? I'm just looking, will the new system actually provide that alignment if it's the latter? David 01:30:43.200
It will, it will when it's fully implemented because we link, it aligns the operational plan, each operational plan initiative with the corporate plan. the corporate plan objective and it will be able to then flow down that you would then be able to allow, align to branch plans. At the moment those branch plans are sitting in Excel spreadsheets or Word documents so it will give us integrated, more integrated picture of it. Branch plans would contain the initiatives that are in the operational plan as well as other projects and initiatives that that relate more to the service delivery side of things that don't necessarily get reported to Council. Brian Stockwell 01:31:25.361
So just to follow on, so the traffic light type approach approach. is If we've got something in the operational planning where the branch says well we've had that position vacant for X number, does that show up in their planning as in they don't have a lower expectation or does the target we set before knowing that we're going to have a long loss of a key staff member? Just a couple in there that I'm surprised are showing as on track where I think they're behind. David 01:31:59.456
It look and we sometimes people do actually in their commentary probably I suppose want to promote that they are progressing do you know what I mean we really will need will need to keep an eye on that in the third quarter because then we will be looking to develop the new operational plan. In the last quarter there were a number there are several initiatives that were showing minor and major disruptions disruptions that that have have got got back back on on track but it will need we will need to scrutinize it a little bit more closely to make sure the reporting is accurate but particularly at that quarter three because you do not want to get to quarter four and think think everything's everything's progressing just fine on track and then get a surprise but normally that doesn't happen you know there can be developments in projects with the chat with a council decision for example which allows hard things to progress to and staff have been working pretty bring things back on track yeah i'm always thinking about this i'm sure when people are filling out their part they're doing it in accordance with their plan but i'm just wondering whether that by nature because we have a 20 vacancy rate that we're not capturing that 20 loss We might have to think about, maybe on a program level, start looking at what was our starting capacity for this quarter to achieve this outcome. Yeah, to really see the impact of the resourcing on the delivery. Tom Wegener 01:33:31.800
Other questions? 2.6.1, 2.6.1, there's a red, and the initiative is to undertake the preparatory phase for the proposed development of a new community strategy which outlines the community vision for Noosa. And it says that it's a major disruption. Major disruption due to staffing. Well, I mean, this is actually going to speak to us, between the question and do I, if there's anything. Oh, yeah. You've got all the other questions, don't you? Frank Wilkie 01:34:10.538
Yeah. Perhaps you'd like to move from motion. Tom Wegener 01:34:12.318
Oh, yes, I'd like to move from motion. Certainly. Brian Stockwell 01:34:20.335
Now you may speak. Okay, first of all, it's very impressive. Tom Wegener 01:34:25.775
I look at, you know, the year in review and I look at the operational plan and it is, it's so big and it's so massive that it is impressive and where I'm going with this is when I set out 2.6.1 that we have Now you may speak. That we haven't started the undertaking of a preparatory phase for the proposed development of a new community strategy. I'm looking at this saying this is actually our community strategy. Our operational plan is impressive. And what we're doing is utterly amazing. And sometimes I consider that we're moving into a destination management plan and kind of looking forward where think our goals of this year are to continue doing what we're doing, to finish what we're doing, because the operational plan is on track. And it's fantastic. And in my opinion, this is the heart and soul of our Noosa Council, is just to maintain doing what we are actually doing and to perhaps celebrate a And to perhaps celebrate a bit more of these successes, for example, in the operational plan, which is delivering the cycle and walking implementation plan, which is our destination management. The Go Noosa, again, implement SQA local laws, forestry management plan, public art policy, the Noosa Biosphere Trail, Botanic Gardens Master Plan, pathway renewals. Voting land, the libraries, all of this is within our operational plan. And to me, this is the heart and soul of what we actually do, outward facing to the community. So, on a wider level, I'd just love to see us celebrate these and continue doing what we're doing, and finishing up, and not launching into anything that might detract from this, because this is fundamental. And I don't think anything should overlay this, because this is working, and it's what we're doing. So, I'm just thoroughly impressed. Brian Stockwell 01:36:38.738
And rest, and that's it. Frank Wilkie 01:36:47.720
No? Oh, look, thank you, Deb, for the report. The one thing I get from this is, as Councillor Wegener said, it's just the enormity of tasks that this council has set our staff to do at the last budget. last budget, and 107 initiatives, 88% of them are on track. And 107. There's been some disruption to some of them. We've heard the reasons, some of the reasons why. And it just makes me a bit conscious of one of the distractions that I mentioned is unplanned demands on staff time. And I think it's something for us councillors to be mindful of when we bring extra tasks to the to the staff to undertake that were not set out in the massive budget and budget funded operational plan that we all unanimously agreed upon when we adopted the budget but please pass on our thanks to the staff. The great work that they continue to do day after day and then there's operational issues on top of this they're just the day-to-day business of the council that's also churning away as well as these other strategic more strategic initiatives so strategic initiatives, so please thank the staff for the work you're doing Larry. I will, absolutely. It's a massive effort. Brian Stockwell 01:38:24.510
On the whole it's a very good report suggesting good progress on track with what we plan to do. We balance that against what we'd like to do and a lot of time as councillors we get the query about why aren't you doing what you said you were going to be doing and the councillor we can have a sort of saying well we just keep on doing what we're doing but there are some key strategies that we have adopted that aren't going as quickly as I would like and as the community is like many around this table we have to realise that this report doesn't highlight some of the key issues. Easton Beach is Fossil Manure. It's been one of the ones to be set by a long vacancy but we also have to make hard decisions about budget. We didn't put a lot of money in there for restoration of encroachments, we didn't put money in the budget for replacing a coastal engineer to do the beach accesses. So these are things that don't show accesses. So these are things that don't show up in the quarterly operational plan, but it's what, when the community who are engaged look at it in their project and say, well, it's on track, but they haven't learned what they've said they've learned. These are the things as councils we have to, you know, work out how we communicate that and be open and understanding. Yeah, we hoped, which even more by now, it's likely we'll walk away. Every budget comes up, I say, yeah, just increase the funding by 10 times a bit. But we have to also be the reality that to fund these initiatives, if we don't get grants, it comes out of the rat payers pocket. So we have to balance the desire with the actual reality of having to balance the budget. But on the whole, this report shows we're on track with doing what Frank Wilkie 01:40:11.660
Anyone else? Just a follow-up question about that the Eastern Beaches foreshore management plan is something that's intended to run over multiple years, is it not? So and here you've mentioned that you've listed the actions that have been completed under that but there are more years to run before it's all all the actions are completed. Just to put it in perspective. David 01:40:35.800
Yes it is and there are several other initiatives like that where the plans actually the programs run over a number of years and it's just reporting against the particular year but they do extend over later years. Karen Finzel 01:40:58.660
Yes thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for the report. It's comprehensive and gives us a good snapshot. And a road map on our destination towards where we're heading. I like the idea that we are reaffirming our continued focus on community resilience, facilities and services. Resilience, facilities and services, especially health and wellbeing, culture and creativity. Again, you know, we've got to work hard as a council to try and balance our aspirations, our set targets and our budget to try and get, you know, equity across the Shire and meet all the needs and expectations. Having said that, you know, our corporate plan, we are striving to support strategies and plans and we are heading towards the Noosa Community Strategy and Social Justice Charter, which will, again, will help ensure that this livability and Noosa being a place where not only do we respect our biosphere values and our environment, but we really focus on, on our people and, and where they would like to be and together we're moving forward. So, I think we're all working hard at the space, including the staff that have presented the report, and together we'll keep moving forward on the matters raised. So thank you everybody for the work and the time and the energy that you have put into this Brian Stockwell 01:42:33.440
Councillor Wegener, would you like to extend your right of reply? Yeah, considering the budget, I'm hoping that, especially the new councillors, will start to be connected dots from the operational plan to the budget. And I don't think we really had the opportunity to do that in the last budget session because we were just elected and we kind of rushed in and we had a couple of initiatives that we voted on. But to really perhaps step back and look at the operations and look at look at what we spend our money on and maybe have a more distant approach to it and see on a more holistic level how things are moving along with the council because my that our operation plan is fantastic and my opinion may might be that focusing on initiative moving forward may be offset somewhat by really looking at what we're doing and finishing finishing what we're doing and appreciating what we're doing and getting to know what we're doing a little what we're doing a little bit better, because we need to change, yes we need to change, but we actually do stuff really well, and the meeting and the plan just brought that to me, just my gosh, you know, how the whole system really spins well. We have a very, very good, financially stable Shire, and this proves it. But to step back and maybe appreciate it a little bit more, instead of looking off into the future and seeing what's over the horizon, looking at our own backyard. The reformed Blue Star Council wing. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Yes. And that unanimous, that brings us, there is no confidential session, so that brings us to the close of the meeting. Thank you. And we will thank councillors for their attendance and for their participation in the closed meeting at 2:14. Frank Wilkie 01:44:40.752
Thank you, Mr Chair. Karen Finzel 01:44:42.872
Thank you, Mr Chair and staff. Related Noosa Council Meetings
← Browse all Noosa Shire Council meeting transcripts
